People do not contribute to energy saving plans.
They find difficult to understand and it is costly to adopt.
Replacement of any appliances, equipment are costly.
Manufactureres have to pay more certifications / inspection and forces them to introduce their energy saving products at more cost.
On other hand Government gives cash rebates to consumers to buy those appliances / equipment. It is not working well.

Suggestions: Manufacturers has to be given incentive to encourage producing energy efficient products so that they can launch products at low prices. This will make coustomer think twice to buy costly inefficient products.

I applaud this article for identifying the economic opportunities and political and social challenges associated with various ways to conserve energy and increase the efficiency of its use.I am disappointed in the tenor of the conclusion, however. If I have my math right, even after a rebound effect, analysts estimates would result in a net of between 31% and 49% of the goals of greenhouse gas reduction through the conservation and efficiency programs highlighted here.The article's conclusion seems tepid, at best "Either way, negawatts are worth pursuing. But they are unlikely to satisfy the world's thirst for energy to the extent their advocates assume."People read conclusions like this and walk away feeling as though there's little of the hoped for benefit of such programs. Isn't the bottom line something closer to "1/3 to 1/2 of the problem can be addressed without anything that we haven't already done, successfully, with existing technology and policy?"Details of my alternate conclusion can be found on my web log at http://fivepercent.us/2008/05/20/the-economist-misses-their-own-point-on... Harrison

Interesting article, but the final two paragraphs should have highlighted a much larger issue. The rebound effect describes the reactions to energy efficiency (aka energy productivity). The article suggest a rebound in the range of 26-37%. But the deeper concern is over the causality between efficiency and energy consumption.

The deeper debate concerns whether energy efficiency is in fact the CAUSE of increased energy consumption. By making energy effectively cheaper, producers can substitue labour for capital, and on a fixed income, individuals can demand more energy services. I recommend reading a new book by Polimeni et al. ' The Jevons paradox and the myth of resources efficiency improvements' for a very thorough overview.

Finally, if negawatts had any merit, why aren't other producers catching on. What about negapples, or negacars, or negahouses? I've been producing infinite quantites of negagoods for years, so surely I should be able to make some profits on it? Is it really a replacement for the real thing?

While the article presents graphs of energy intensity, it doesn't produce graphs of total energy consumption, which generally rise with decreased energy intensity.

One needs to apply a little care with simple projects with good advertised paybacks. As an example, in cooler climates, where building heat is a factor, the replacement of incandescent lights with higher efficiency flourescent lights may save a lot of electricity, but the savings are generally offset by an increased demand for heat - and since heat generally uses a different fuel, the cost is ignored and does not factor in payback calculations.

A recent audit of a large building in Canada showed that a lighting retrofit that had a quick payback and resulted in a 25% electricity saving actually resulted in a 10% increase in heating costs and an 8% increase in the GHG footprint becasue the electricity is largely hydro, and the energy saved was replaced with steam created by burning gas.

Savings in building envelope technology that reduce leakage and loss - or trap solar gains for heat, are often the most certain means of reducing GHG footprint in cool climates. Sadly, they can also be among the more difficult and costly to install.

In my part of the US, the high cost associated with adding anything that saves energy (besides energy-efficient appliances as the older ones fail) is a problem. I would like to add devices like whole house fans, better insulation, better windows, etc. to my 50 year old home, but the "cost of entry" is prohibitive. I understand that I will save money and energy over the long run, but I need to have the capital in the short run to install these various improvements. I would be willing to try some of these plans if they were available in my area.

Regulation is what controls the rebound effect, and taxes are the only regulatory control with the teeth to make a difference. Clinton and McCain can pander with rebates... meanwhile, the biggest energy challenge of our time will be enforceable universal conservation, which will require that all nations agree to represent the real costs of energy (wars, weapons, famine. disease), and then adding to it in the form of hard consumption tariffs. Here's hoping the windfall comes in the form of reinvestment in schools.

The discussion of barriers to conservation was interesting, but missed the ways in which current regulatory rules limit industry's flexibility. Lisa Marganelli's article in the May Atlantic (Waste Not) describes how regulations that manage pollutant emissions / discharges piecemeal can make it very difficult to modify industrial processes to reuse or recycle waste heat (and other byproducts), even though such reuse can dramatically increase overall efficiency and reduce emissions.

Why do not more people conserve energy? Well, here in the US we have a few leaders that could use some math lessons.In a July 17, 2001 NY Times article titled 'Cheney, on the Road, Seeks Support for Energy Program', our Vice President, Dick Cheney, said this: 'Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it cannot be the basis of a sound energy policy'.Oh, really? On Wall Street I heard that they call it the 'compounding effect of interest' and tell us all to practice it on the personal level, like the experts also do on the bigger level.I guess Mr. Cheney follows that lesser-known industry variant, 'the confounding effect of conflicts of interest'.His boss, G.W. Bush, in the same article, said: 'I think any time there's not an immediate problem that's apparent to people, it's tough to convince people to think long term'.Mr Bush must have been talking about both himself and Mr. Cheney, at least in terms of what constitutes good leadership in relation to energy policy.

Pity this article doesn't describe how effective the various schemes have been. It misses the fact that the EU has recently mandated a change from incandescent bulbs to compact fluorescent bulbs. There is no mention of how effective Denmark has been in producing renewable power (I understand they produce 30% of national grid electricity by wind power!).

It seems to me to be patently obvious that in addition to higher prices for fuel governments need to set rules on behalf of all, for example minimum insulation standards for buildings if we are to improve our collective lot. The Japanese approach of forcing the worst manufacturers to improve or face fines is a new version of what has been happening for years – encouraging acceptable activity whilst discouraging or banning unacceptable behaviour. It was once acceptable to sell paint containing lead. Today it is illegal. Why not make inefficiency first socially unacceptable, and eventually illegal to be wasteful.

In fact the idea of focussing on gradual improvements is doing too little. Simple changes can have a radical impact. It is now possible to build a house with sufficient insulation that space heating is not required, even in northern climates. I live in the South of Europe and I am amazed and sadly disappointed that there is not more made of solar power. Heating water is very cheap and can pay back in a very, very short time. Yet in my country most of the local stores simply don’t offer the equipment required – solar water panels. Of those that do it is ridiculously overpriced – out of line with the cost of production (e.g. Euro 4,000 for a one sq.meter panel!). The local authorities will not allow the terracotta tiled roofs to be covered with solar panels because they fear it will ‘spoil’ the character of the area – asking people to improve then having such legislation is typical of the ridiculousness of many rules in Europe. I will be building my own panels, and will halve my summer electric bills. The payback will be about 6 months.

In fact there is so much power in waves that it is entirely possible that we will switch to generating 95% of our power from waves, using it to electrolyse water and thereby provide abundant clean hydrogen - the clean transport fuel we so desperately seek. In such a scenario atmospheric CO2 levels could collapse in a generation.

I live in Albania and support greatly the afforts towards energy efficiency; energy intensity in Albania is relatively high and especially among the housholds and public adminsitration. I share the oppinion that building a culture of savings demands strong commitment in educating people coupled this with financial incentives towarsd efficiancy increase. Actually the decision makers in our country are much more oriented in enhancing energy production than in lowing energy intensity -- they even speak of becoming as much independent as possible without taking care of daily details in the energy usage worth saving especially in our country where electricity price in subsidised using crasy uneconomical scemes. The power planting and distribution is all owned by the state and as the result the management and leadership of this system is driven by the mentality of staing in power until the next day of election has arrived... I will mention a hapenning every albanian will observe quite often in his life:
Some days ago I was visiting the custom office of Tirana region; I was I need of a counsultancy regarding custom tax excemption. The moment I entered the respective office responsible for such services an extremly warm wave of air came to my face; There right at the corner of the office the office leader was sitting with a huge electrical reflector (some 2500 watt) being on and lighting in the red by the side of the chair. Immediately my eyes starred at the open window of the office and the sunshine entering through it very brightly -- it was a very sunny day of end of April; "my God!" was my only whisper .. and then " so we are spending days running after the burocracy for some 100 Euro tax exemption and the lady there spends angrily the hell of the money in vain"! Definitely the EE is worth of investing in my country!

I had hoped to post this comment in connection with the article on 15th April on appliances adjusting their demand for electricity to match the state of the grid to supply it. Since I missed that opportunity, I think it is relevant to this article.
Older appliances with mechanical controls could have the supply of electricity to them controlled by simple time switches to take advantage of cheaper night time tariffs, where this is available and applicable(washing machines & dishwashers). Obviously not appliacble to fridges or lighting etc. Modern appliances all have electronic controls requiring them to be permanently connected to a power source in order to enter programmes before switching on. Only the most expensive modern electronic appliances have an integral clock to allow the user to set the time of operation.
My point is that timing devices that allow users to use cheap night time tariffs were a way of operating appliances during periods where demand for electricity is low. That is after all why generators provide lower cost night time tariffs, and the move to electronic controls on washing machines and dishwashers has deprived users of making this enlightened self interested contribution to energy conservation.
How difficult would it be to put a clock in every kitchen appliance?

As Mr MacManners says, price is the single most effective tool to reduce energy consumption. How else can one explain the sudden increased interest in compact cars in the US, where gasoline is reaching the level of $1 per liter (in many other parts of the world, a still remarkably decent price)?
Concerning subsidies or tiered prices, however, a note of caution: in my country Brazil, there are "social" tariffs for utility bills below a certain monthly consumption, ostensibly to help poor families. This reduces the incentive of any household with a low consumption level (including, for instance, one-person homes - even if affluent) to save, and many are disgracefully wasteful in their usage. High level users may be made to pay more, but nobody should get any utility below cost!

Although I am not generally a fan of the interventionist Greek state or state run companies in general I must say that Greece is lightyears ahead of the UK when it comes to promoting energy efficiency. The prominent feature of the energy label on household appliances for sale convinced me to buy class A appliances only. I remember only a few years ago in the UK the closest to energy efficiency I could get was buying a low energy light bulb that gave no other promises than lasting longer than a normal light bulb.

The Public Power Corporation, ΔΕΗ, also makes a real effort to try to get consumers to waste less electricity. Here in Athens for instance the price list is two tiered, where there is a big penalty on all KWhs over a certain threshold every month. If one knows that every KWh over the threshold will result in an exponentially higher bill one tries harder to save electricity - in my case regardless of the fact that electricity is much cheaper in Greece than in the UK. Moreover, electricity bills are fully intelligible here in Greece, even to me who has a very limited knowledge of the Greek language, thus making it easier for the customer to understand the savings he can net by reducing his electricity consumption - be it by purchasing new more energy efficient appliances or by switching off unnecessary lighting or making a heroic attempt at trying to cope without the airconditioner on.

Moreover every flat I have seen in Athens, even a friend's 250 euros per month dwelling has a very easily accessible switch to turn off the water heating system, despite heroic attempts I never managed to work out how to switch off the monstrous energy 7 boiler located in my 1400 pounds a month house in the Home Couties!

This idea of the negawatts it is really good. Just think in the millions and millions of people in the entire world that use normal 100 watts light bulbs? I just changed these light bulbs by other economic that spend only 9 watts. They are expense but in the long run, say a year for example, the money you spent is already returned. What if there are an international NGO or the World Bank or United Nations to fund the change of this kind of light bulbs? To enter into the new technologies is still expensive for million of peoples, but change this light bulbs is achievable, is cheap and is already on any part in the world.

Higher energy prices are the fundamental way to get us to work at energy efficiency. This will make the figures in the business case even more robust than they are now. It will also make us sit up and take note. When energy bills become a significant expense senior management will be asking questions. The answers are already there but are being ignored because the fuel bills are too small to make it onto the corporate radar.

Nice article, but it could've been written, with few changes, in the mid-80s: same questions, same answers. Funny how you can leave a field of study for twenty years, come back, and find so little's changed.

If you remember the 1990's in America, Business Consultants were puzzled by the facts that service businesses had made substantial investments in computer technology, but hadn't reaped any efficiency rewards.The lesson we learned in the following decade was that people use new technology to do the job the same old way. No more carbon paper for example. It just takes time for those curious and resourceful homo sapiens to learn how to use new tools to do the job a new way to take full advantage of the power of new technology.However, one thing that is as sure as death and taxes is the curiosity and resourcefulness of we homo sapiens. The world is flat, and energy will be saved massively.

BristolEd,"The more electrcity I use, the lower the rate per kiloWatt-hour. "In my country Malaysia, tariffs actually increase as you use it. Which would probably encourage people to limit their usage.

There is a simple way to encourage investment in saving energy and that is to use a carrot not a stick. Give people Rewards if they save energy but require them to spend the Rewards on more ways to save energy. It is the same principle that Frequent Flyer points are popular. We like to get something tangible for doing something more than a discount. The fact that we have to spend frequent flier points on flying is irrelevant. The fact that you have to spend your Energy Rewards on saving more Energy is irrelevant from a behaviour change point of view. Visit http://rewards.edentiti.com to see details of how it can be implemented for "no cost" to governments but still allow them to get the kudos.